The extremists who are
on a mission to eliminate the Department of Agriculture’s
Wildlife Services would do well to spend time with ranchers who
live and work on our Western landscape. There, they might gain an
on-the-ground perspective other than their narrowly defined agenda.
As the old Greek shepherds — echoing the ancient Greek
philosophers — say, “Everything in moderation.” Yet
the campaign to end Wildlife Services is anything but moderate;
it’s fraught with melodrama and spin-doctoring.
Since biblical times, domestic livestock and crops have needed
protection from predators and scavengers. Domestic livestock and
agriculture have enabled mankind to explore and establish
settlements, and have played a major role in providing the comforts
we expect today. These days, though, most Americans are several
generations removed from production agriculture, and most
don’t realize what’s required to put a meal on their
table. Wildlife Services fulfills a critical role in protecting
American agriculture, yet it is portrayed by extremists as
“slaughtering and persecuting” wildlife.
It’s true that Wildlife Services kills over a million animals
a year, but the vast majority are birds that cause crop and feedlot
damage. Is this an unpleasant thought? Of course, but is it
necessary? Yes. Does Wildlife Services kill native carnivores? Yes,
but is it necessary? Yes. Does it harm the viability of the overall
wildlife population? Biologists will tell you it absolutely does
not.
Do you want your home occupied by mice, or it is all
right to kill them? Prairie dogs might be considered cute, unless
they destroy your property and pose the risk of bubonic plague to
your family. Wolves are wild and beautiful, but less so if they
kill your horse, a beloved family pet or take a significant bite
out of your paycheck by killing your livestock.
As with
all situations in life, there are many sides to an issue. Defining
the predator-control issue in a one-sided campaign is an insult to
everyone who doesn’t know the facts. It implies that the
average American is not smart enough to make the
“right” decision when presented with a comprehensive
overview of the issue. On the other hand, I believe that when
presented with all the facts, most Americans understand that
managing wildlife is necessary if we are to maintain viable farms
and ranches.
Leading the charge to eliminate Wildlife
Services are groups such as WildEarth Guardians. They charge that
the federal agency’s job is “to eradicate and bring
down wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bears, prairie dogs, and
other animals. Help stop the slaughter today.” This statement
is false. It has been decades since there was a federal policy
aimed at eradicating wolves, and nowhere in the current Wildlife
Services program is there language directing the agency to
eradicate any of the species listed above.
It is true
that Wildlife Services does occasionally kill entire packs of
wolves that have repeatedly caused damage to livestock; that was
part of the federal tradeoff that got wolves restored to the West.
Wildlife Services also spends money to target the removal of
depredating coyotes, bears, and lions. However, the agency is not
engaged in the wholesale slaughter of predators or other wildlife;
its mission is to protect agriculture. Wildlife Services is a major
component of predator control for the livestock industry, and
livestock losses would be significantly higher without an agency
constantly removing depredating animals.
The campaign to
eliminate Wildlife Services includes a recent petition to the EPA
to ban M44s, devices used to kill coyotes. The petition — filed by
Sinapu and Forest Guardians, now known as WildEarth Guardians — is
riddled with inconsistencies and omissions. For instance, the
petition states that from 1996-2006, Wildlife Services violated
federal regulations 17 times when setting M44s. Yet it fails to
mention that during the same time frame, 244,000 M44s were set, and
33,000 of the M44s were fired. Statistically speaking, this means
that only .0000696 violations occurred as a percentage of overall
M44s set in the field; and only .000515 violations occurred as a
percentage of M44s actually fired in the field.
Americans
enjoy the luxury of spending only approximately 10 percent of their
income on food, compared to the up to 45 percent that people in
other countries must pay. Stripping away management tools that
assist agriculture undermines the U.S. economy and heads us down
the road to rapid dependency on foreign countries for our food. As
the rhetoric to eliminate Wildlife Services escalates, remember the
Greek shepherds’ philosophy of “Everything in
moderation.”
Bonnie Kline is a contributor
to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org).
She is executive director of the Colorado Wool Growers Association
in Denver, Colorado.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
